Kid day at the airport...

Peter R. wrote:

Perhaps failing to remain clear of clouds by the legal requirements is a
violation of the FARS, but I don't think there is a FAR preventing Jay from
bragging about it on Usenet.

Nope, but that's what makes it "blatant."

George Patterson
Give a person a fish and you feed him for a day; teach a person to
use the Internet and he won't bother you for weeks.

Gig 601XL Builder wrote:

No George your wrong. The above should read: " I'm simply saying that
failing to do that is a blatant violation of the FARs and bragging about it
on usenet is a violation of good sense."

That too.

George Patterson
Give a person a fish and you feed him for a day; teach a person to
use the Internet and he won't bother you for weeks.

"Jay Honeck" wrote in message
ps.com...
I think we're also getting hung up on my use of the word "scattered" in
the story -- which, in FAA terminology, means a LOT more clouds

If you had fewer clouds than the standard definition of "scattered" (which
isn't the FAA's definition), then perhaps you should have described them as
"few".

But in any case, I'd say what we're "getting hung up on" is your use of the
word "cloud". The number of clouds is irrelevant. If there's just one,
it's still illegal to touch that one cloud while operating VFR (the exact
distance depends on the particular airspace, but there's no allowance for
actually touching a cloud while VFR).

[...] There
were far less than "few" (as the FAA would say), and the puffies were
aligned in a nice, neat row of about five miles in length.

The number, alignment, position, etc. are all irrelevant.

IMHO, if you cannot see through the condensed moisture suspended in the air,
it's a cloud. You may argue that it's so small as to not present a safety
issue, but the legal requirement does not provide exceptions for clouds that
are small enough to see around.

(As a reminder: "legal" is not the same as "safe", just as "illegal is not
the same as "unsafe"...the two terms often coincide, but you need to meet
both "legal" AND "safe" as a pilot).

If you can see THROUGH, then you're just fine, IMHO. That's not a cloud,
it's a visibility reduction. If you cannot see through the cloud, you have
no business touching it, no matter how small.

I'm always surprised by the development of puffies in a row --
especially a sharply defined, very small row. It's hard to imagine
what is happening in the atmosphere to cause their development in such
a tighly defined area, but I see them fairly regularly around here.

Let's see if that attempt at redirecting the conversation will work out for
you.

Pete

"Jay Honeck" wrote in message
oups.com...
A "cloud" shall henceforth be defined as something that a plane can
hide behind -- period.

I could easily hide a plane behind a semi-truck.

[...]
Seriously, I think this definition gets to the spirit and meaning of
the FAR

First of all, the FAA enforces the letter, not the spirit, of the FARs. I
refer you to the many "can a Private Pilot accept insert payment here?"
threads. Secondly, you certainly have not made clear that you have been
obeying the spirit of the FARs.

Pete

("Jay Honeck" wrote)
-- and they don't critique my landings!


....sorry about that. :-)


Montblack

("Brad Zeigler" wrote)
[snip]
Jay's not instrument rated and flies exclusively VFR. Jay has repeatedly
mentioned why he hasn't finished his rating, noteably that he doesn't need
it and wouldn't be able to stay proficient, inspite of the fact that he
probably flies 200 hours a year. Considering how much flying he does,
he'd be an excellent candidate for getting an instrument rating.


IIRC, he was near the checkride stage of his IFR training when he got busy
with the hotel.


Montblack

On 16 Sep 2005 10:58:17 -0700, "Jay Honeck" wrote
in om::

It's hard to imagine
what is happening in the atmosphere to cause their development in such
a tighly defined area, but I see them fairly regularly around here.

I would guess the cloud street to be a stationary source of
convective activity that generates them. Then the air mass moves
along with the wind, and a trail of clouds is created much the same as
chains of volcanic islands are produced by a tectonic plate sliding
over a source of convective magma rising to the surface. Of course,
the cloud street could have been the result of a sheer line.

Get your glider certificate, and you'll have a better understanding of
meteorology.

Jay Honeck wrote:

A pop-up IFR clearance to go cloud dancing? We're talking about
dipping a wing in a puffy cloud the size of a semi-truck, separated by
1/2 mile from the next nearest similar-sized cloud.

We're talking about blatant violation of the FARs.


Really? What is the technical definition of a "cloud"?

If I can see through it, is it a "cloud"?

No.

George Patterson wrote:


If I can see through it, is it a "cloud"?


Yep. It just has to be visible.

Wrong, if I can see thru it then it isn't a cloud.

"Jay Honeck" wrote:
Really? What is the technical definition of a "cloud"?

"If it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it must be duck!"